conquering the world, one film review at a time

Monthly Archives: August 2011

I apologize for not being able to update this blog for a couple of reasons. First of all, a friend of mine succumbed to his illness Monday last week, and we, his friends, have been mourning for him. I will always cherish the memories, Grant. I’ll be seeing you around.

Secondly, I’ve been trying to get my work documents in order. It’s taking a bit too long, and I’m taking my sweet time with it. Thus, I haven’t gotten around to watching any films, old or new.

I remember watching Silent Hill when it was first released, and it was then that I realized that it set a benchmark on how movie adaptations of video games. The Tomb Raider films starring Angelina Jolie, personally, were nothing more than Angelina Jolie vehicles (probably another unpopular opinion here, but then again I was never a fan of the Tomb Raider games). Mortal Kombat, while decent enough, probably didn’t satiate the bloodlust of hardcore MK fans as the film by Paul W.S. Anderson wasn’t as gory as the original game. As for Street Fighter, the Japanese anime are probably the best adaptations, while the live action ones (Street Fighter, and The Legend of Chun Li) are a disgrace (d’oh alright, the Van Damme film was a “so bad it’s good” type of film).

Going back to the issue at hand (before I geek out on video games further), what exactly made Silent Hill a benchmark for movie adaptations of video games? There are two reasons. For starters, it had a decent story. “Again with the story, Dr. Bok?!” you haters might say. Well, I’m sorry if I’m giving great importance to the story, but let’s face it; without a decent story, you wouldn’t have any reason to follow the events projected on screen. A lack of a decent story is the reason why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was horrible. Sure it had robo-destruction galore (despite the nauseating cinematography), visual effects, and Megan Fox’s boobs, but those things can only do so much.

so much for a human prop

Silent Hill had a story. Sure, it may have been a bit convoluted when it tries to explain (or not) the reasons why the town of Silent Hill is evil, but at its essence is a simple point: “Mother is God in the eyes of a child”. The protagonist, Rose DaSilva, is willing to go through the extra mile just to save her daughter, even if it means invoking the aid of the Devil and aiding in the massacre of loony cultists. I may not agree with Rose’s decisions to save her daughter, but the very core of the story is simple and engaging enough for the audience to be involved.

Secondly, the film captured the spirit of a Silent Hill game. It made use of enough images, tropes, and camera angles to make you feel like your watching somebody play a Silent Hill game. The first time Rose enters the Otherworld, the awkward camera angles reminds one of Silent Hill for the Playstation when Harry Mason follows his daughter, Cheryl, into a dark alley, only for darkness to engulf him. Sure, scenes were lifted from the videogames, but they were done so in the service of the story (though a minor complaint is that the film seemed to cram as much Silent Hill monsters as possible that they weren’t properly utilized).

Also, Akira Yamaoka‘s score was used in the film. Music is an excellent tool in film making as it can “alter” the film experience tremendously. Try watching Star Wars without John Williams’ score. Or better yet, try watching In the Mood for Love without the the music. It’ll alter the film tremedously. Akira Yamaoka’s score for the games were fitting for them, and to hear them in the film only helps develop the feel of the movie. Listen to the soundtrack, and you’ll instantly know that you’re watching a Silent Hill movie.

From the images, camera angles, the monster cameos, and Akira Yamaoka’s score, the film included enough material from the games to capture the spirit. Add a relatively decent story, and we have a clear winner on our hands.

Now if only the Hitman and Max Payne movies had the same filmmaking craft like Silent Hill. *sigh*

Two things. First of all, thank you for those who regularly visit this blog. It makes me feel better that there are people who are patient enough to sift through my brain-farts of movie reviews. It makes me want to write better reviews for you guys.

Speaking of movie reviews, let me get to the second part. I still haven’t seen Cowboys and Aliens, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Why? I graduated last June, which means I receive no weekly school allowance anymore, and I’m still looking for a job (hopefully in the academe, or something related to film or theater).

Sure, I earned around Php 3,500.00 two Satursdays ago but that doesn’t mean I have to spend it all in one go. And this lack of funds is the reason why I still haven’t made a review of either Cowboys and Aliens, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. So yeah, they’ll have to wait. You can expect a review once I’ve acquired a copy (through legal or illegal means), or when I stumble upon a hidden wealth that no one, not even the Great Omnipotent One, has stumbled upon previously.

In the mean time, let me not waste your time reading this entry by showing you a pair of boobs.

Seems like the haters are geek raging to the interwebz (not surprisingly) about the disappointing costume design for Selina Kyle, most particularly to the goggles. Some comments I’ve read range from, “I’ve trusted Nolan’s vision until now” to “This look’s cheap” to “Where are her ears?”

I personally think the costume design is underwhelming. But somehow, I’m not that surprised. I’ve had my doubts with Christopher Nolan‘s previous design and directions with the previous Batman films too. Take the following as examples.

The first time saw I the new Joker make-up of Heath Ledger, I found it too dirty and weird, and said to myself that “I still prefer the old Joker make-up of Jack Nicholson. How did that end up?

The first time I saw the Tumbler from Batman Begins, I thought it was okay. But how about those who were used to the corvette-like design of the earlier Bat-mobiles? I’m sure some were also skeptical of the new design. How did that end up?

The first time I saw Ra’s al-Ghul played by Ken Watanabe, I honestly laughed at how goofy he looked. Come now, don’t deny it: loose robes, and a white goatie divided in half? It looked goofy! How did that end up?

Point: take it easy with first impressions. These are simply stills. And I’m pretty sure the story will justify the designs.

P.S.- As for an unpopular opinion, what the hell is this?

I’m sure Tom Hardy will be able to pull this role off, but what’s up with the goofy looking Bane mask? Hehe! 😛 Still, I can’t wait for the movie!